An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc
- Thread starter The Chairman
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
ummm, yes. I posted the 7 mill farmer john thing a while back and was promptly corrected that it was a 5 mil one piece suit.
Some went as far as listing several incorrect things as "FACT"...
Some went as far as listing several incorrect things as "FACT"...
Oh my. That post was just a simple question? I must have missed the question mark. It certainly look liked like an agency bashing soliloquy to me. Actually, it still does but maybe that's because I don't care if PADI is wrong, I'll always support them. Except of course when I said they steal money from members by the kickback scheme on insurance premiums or that they fail to do enough to weed out the bad instructors before there is an fatal accident.
When you said it was funny that people take sides, did you just mean that they were paying dues to one agency or was it that you found it funny that some people stopped, thought and checked their facts before they posted?
Between a Sheriff's finding (not paid by any of the parties) and an expert's finding (paid by one of the parties), i would lean towards the Sheriff's.
Why don't you go ahead and post a link to those findings....
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
Sorry, I can barely follow you.
I posted that when it first started to come to light, I did not have all the supposed information we do now. However when I started with "How would you feel" it is kinda a question. I stated that if you teach PADI this should greatly concern you...and it still should. Regardless of how a person may feel.
Regarding your comment of "that's because I don't care if PADI is wrong, I'll always support them. Except of course when I said they steal money from members by the kickback scheme on insurance premiums or that they fail to do enough to weed out the bad instructors before there is an fatal accident. ". Either you are being sarcastic and I'm not quite catching it or you are serious in which case...I don't agree with your ethics as stated in your post. If I support something and it later proves not worthy of that support, I feel the honourable thing to do is to withdraw that support.
Agency bashing... I think it was more "PADI's lawyer tactic bashing" than PADI bashing. Now that more details have come out, I still think their (lawyers) behavior in regards to settling and lying to stay in, and also in their "accidental" release of the incident report to the Plaintiffs AFTER they had settled and colluded to work with them is shameful. That said, I am not about to paint PADI with the brush of bad ethics because I would be surprised if more than a couple people there even knew, let alone approved the defense approach.
I also think that there were some misleading statements in Carneys letter. I am not yet certain if they were deliberate or not. They did muddy the issue somewhat as more has come out but I believe he is following his conscience. If indeed there is ever any proof that he deliberately tried to mislead, I shall think less of him.
To be honest, there are only a handfull of dive industry lawyers, and they stay busy chasing every dive accident and dipping deeply in the "quickly settle" pot, and it NEEDS to stop. Even worse is there are another handful of dive industry "experts" that are witness for hire that have zero ethics. They are also dipping deeply in the money river of lawsuits and most of them are scum bags.
When I said that some people were taking sides, I meant that THEIR team (whichever it is) became the COMPLETELY ethical and correct team, the other was unethical and liars, and vice versa. But in fact, I see issues of ethics on both sides and find myself conflicted over this case. There are some serious issues that it brings to the front that REALLY need to be discussed and addressed by the industry, DSD/resort style class just one of them.
So, it's nuanced, and many (not all by any means) are acting like it's settled (for or against PADI)
Last edited:
Cerich, let me try it this way so that we can agree on something.... You think that I and many others here are biased and leaning greatly or have already leaned beyond the point of righting ourselves in one direction. I believe that you and many others here are biased and leaning greatly or have already leaned beyond the point of righting yourselves in the other direction.
If we can't agree on that, I'll shake my head and give up. That said, several times before I have posted, including my original post, I asked myself if my position would have been different if it was an SDI instructor involved and the head of PADI wrote Carney's letter. Even in retrospect, it would not have changed my position although I admit that I might not have been so vocal (but a lot more embarrassed).
And so that when we can continue to disagree on something else... you said "There are some serious issues that it brings to the front that REALLY need to be discussed and addressed by the industry, DSD/resort style class just one of them." What did you mean by "it"? Carney's letter? Discussions on standards and the DSD program in particular are fantastic and well worth having. I just don't believe Carney intended that or even considered that when he wrote his letter otherwise he would have at least made a minimal, tangential, obtuse reference to it in his letter. The only reason anyone here is discussing these issues is that we keep getting off topic on these threads.
If we can't agree on that, I'll shake my head and give up. That said, several times before I have posted, including my original post, I asked myself if my position would have been different if it was an SDI instructor involved and the head of PADI wrote Carney's letter. Even in retrospect, it would not have changed my position although I admit that I might not have been so vocal (but a lot more embarrassed).
And so that when we can continue to disagree on something else... you said "There are some serious issues that it brings to the front that REALLY need to be discussed and addressed by the industry, DSD/resort style class just one of them." What did you mean by "it"? Carney's letter? Discussions on standards and the DSD program in particular are fantastic and well worth having. I just don't believe Carney intended that or even considered that when he wrote his letter otherwise he would have at least made a minimal, tangential, obtuse reference to it in his letter. The only reason anyone here is discussing these issues is that we keep getting off topic on these threads.
To your first, I never actually said nor even thought of you in regards to my pick a team comments. Now your responses are starting to make sense, you felt my comments were addressed to you, they weren't, you have just interpreted them to be. That's on you if you feel you are being too biased.
I can see how you may feel I am in the "other camp" because I posted that other thread when this all started.I addressed that above and have expressed my current view as there are issues on both sides that bother me. You just don't seem to believe me. If, as you self identified, are in the "TEAM PADI can do no wrong (except the insurance "kickbacks"and the other thing you mentioned) any view that does not support yours is deemed invalid and needs to be ignored or dismissed. That's a shame, we all should strive to keep open minds in my view.
It is NOT Carneys letter, IT is the totality of this case and the issues exposed by it. So, your view seems to be that on topic is to bash Carney and defend PADI. I don't think that was the threads intent at all.
To end, I could care less what Carney intended,or for the weak in many areas PADI rebuttals, as instructors we have a obligation to our students, that means when our understandings of issues that affect our students change, we need to change.
Similar threads
